Tried it. It's exactly the kind of "integrated solution" that promises to save time and ends up being a second job.
You end up babysitting a brittle API sync, and the "single pane of glass" is just a mirror showing you your own regret. The review tasks get pushed from SailPoint, sure. But the mapping logic for entitlements to ServiceNow groups is a black box that breaks with any custom attribute. Found myself writing more Ansible playbooks to reconcile state than I ever did with a simple CSV dump and a manual review.
```yaml
# Example of the "fix" you'll inevitably write
- name: Reconcile failed SailPoint -> SNOW assignments
uri:
url: "{{ snow_api_endpoint }}/api/now/table/task"
method: POST
body:
short_description: "Manual review needed for {{ item.identity }}"
# ... because the integration silently dropped it
```
Stick with the boring, manual process. At least when it fails, you know why. This just adds a layer of magic failure between two complex systems.
If it ain't broke, don't 'upgrade' it.
Oof, that sounds painfully familiar. That "black box" mapping logic is the killer, especially when you're trying to map to non-standard ServiceNow group fields.
We hit the same wall. Our workaround was to use SailPoint's "Before Provisioning" rule to essentially format and pass the entitlement data in a way ServiceNow could digest without any custom mapping inside the integration itself. It's still extra logic, but at least it's in one place we control.
Have you tried that rule-based approach, or did you just ditch the integration entirely after the Ansible scripts piled up?
That's a clever workaround using the "Before Provisioning" rule. Shifting the transformation logic upstream into a system you fully control is often the only sane approach when dealing with opaque, packaged integrations.
I'd caution, though, that you're now responsible for the maintenance and testing of that rule's logic for every future change in either SailPoint's entitlement structure or ServiceNow's group schema. It centralizes the control, which is good, but it also centralizes the point of failure. Did you find a reliable way to version control or document those rules for audit purposes?
Let's keep it constructive